If everything comes at a cost, why not go with the best ideas we've got? If an independent Nader running for president is, as seems to be the general consensus, a suicide run to get his ideas on the table.... isn't that worthwhile in itself?
He's not so much running to get his ideas on the table, more to get them acknowledged by the other parties.
If he gets enough votes, then it would appear that his policies carry a good bit of weight and so the winning candidate would have to look into maybe carrying some of them out (probably to a limited degree).
The only problem is, you have to vote for Nader to show that his policies carry weight. If too many vote for Nader, he might (hypothetically, anyway) win. Which is bad, because he's not a leader.
All this is easily remedied by setting up a proper third party with his ideals. Does that not make more sense than having one man, doomed to fail, try endlessly to get his ideas recognised in a larger political forum that frankly doesn't want to even hear his name let alone what he has to say?
He's not so much running to get his ideas on the table, more to get them acknowledged by the other parties.
If he gets enough votes, then it would appear that his policies carry a good bit of weight and so the winning candidate would have to look into maybe carrying some of them out (probably to a limited degree).
The only problem is, you have to vote for Nader to show that his policies carry weight. If too many vote for Nader, he might (hypothetically, anyway) win. Which is bad, because he's not a leader.
All this is easily remedied by setting up a proper third party with his ideals. Does that not make more sense than having one man, doomed to fail, try endlessly to get his ideas recognised in a larger political forum that frankly doesn't want to even hear his name let alone what he has to say?
I'd say reading some of that might convince you that Nader has the potential to be a good leader - at least, better than any of the other options.
As for why he doesn't set up a third party with his ideals... that's impossible. Any political party, by default, will represent a broad range of ideals, for better or for worse. The Demmiecrats don't represent a single point of view, nor do the Republicans. If Nader doesn't want to compromise his personal beliefs to establish a "viable" 3rd party, I don't see it as a flaw. Maybe we differ there - especially since you seem to be okay with the establishment simply wanting to stop acknowledging Nader's existence.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I'd say reading some of that might convince you that Nader has the potential to be a good leader - at least, better than any of the other options.
As for why he doesn't set up a third party with his ideals... that's impossible. Any political party, by default, will represent a broad range of ideals, for better or for worse. The Demmiecrats don't represent a single point of view, nor do the Republicans. If Nader doesn't want to compromise his personal beliefs to establish a "viable" 3rd party, I don't see it as a flaw. Maybe we differ there - especially since you seem to be okay with the establishment simply wanting to stop acknowledging Nader's existence.
How do I seem ok with them wanting to voice himself? I was just pointing it out because that's what they are doing. And he doesn't have to compromise his ideals to form a political party. Why do you think his ideals are too narrow for that?
I've already read his wiki page alright, he's done a lot of things, good for him. But he doesn't have what it takes to run a country, as evidenced by the fact he refuses to set up a third party which would bolster his campaign maybe even to the point of victory. He's had 40 goddam years, and he still hasn't done anything remotely like it. So why wouldn't a man such as Nader not set up a party with his ideals? My guess is because he wouldn't know what to do with it. Why? Because he's not that kind of leader. He's an ideas man, but not all idealists are leaders. He wouldn't be able to keep the non-relevant points of view that occur in a political party in check.
Just because a man has good ideas, doesn't mean that he's capable of executing them.
Just because a man has good ideas, doesn't mean that he's capable of executing them.
And how are these political parties you seem so fond of executing any of their ideas? They are the most ineffectual groups in this country. And as far as good ideas go...they are all but bankrupt. So excuse some if they might want to try another route.
And how are these political parties you seem so fond of executing any of their ideas? They are the most ineffectual groups in this country. And as far as good ideas go...they are all but bankrupt. So excuse some if they might want to try another route.
So one man alone is better than a group of people with that, together, are better off as an individual?
I see your point, political parties are ineffectual, don't get me wrong, but they are a means to an end. The only means to the only end, unfortunately.
How do I seem ok with them wanting to voice himself? I was just pointing it out because that's what they are doing. And he doesn't have to compromise his ideals to form a political party. Why do you think his ideals are too narrow for that?
I've already read his wiki page alright, he's done a lot of things, good for him. But he doesn't have what it takes to run a country, as evidenced by the fact he refuses to set up a third party which would bolster his campaign maybe even to the point of victory. He's had 40 goddam years, and he still hasn't done anything remotely like it. So why wouldn't a man such as Nader not set up a party with his ideals? My guess is because he wouldn't know what to do with it. Why? Because he's not that kind of leader. He's an ideas man, but not all idealists are leaders. He wouldn't be able to keep the non-relevant points of view that occur in a political party in check.
Just because a man has good ideas, doesn't mean that he's capable of executing them.
Do you really think that a sizable 3rd party is going to consist purely of people with the same ideas as Nader? With the same refusal to compromise on the issues? It's improbable, if not impossible, and so, compromise would inevitably follow.
Just because Nader doesn't fit the mould of what most people seem to think make a good president doesn't mean he wouldn't be one. (And really, neither Ireland's nor America's track record of leaders speaks very well to our ideas of good leadership.) An ideas man can only be an ideas man until he's put in a position to execute them. And Nader's executed a lot of ideas over the years.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
So one man alone is better than a group of people with that, together, are better off as an individual?
I see your point, political parties are ineffectual, don't get me wrong, but they are a means to an end. The only means to the only end, unfortunately.
Don't limit yourself to bad choices. I know I'm not content with that.
People can and do work with Ralph Nader. he has founded more public interest non profits than anyone in this nation more than likely. So yes, I do believe Ralph Nader knows the value of teamwork and he has people working with him on a grassroots level already to accomplish his objectives.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you really think that a sizable 3rd party is going to consist purely of people with the same ideas as Nader? With the same refusal to compromise on the issues? It's improbable, if not impossible, and so, compromise would inevitably follow.
Just because Nader doesn't fit the mould of what most people seem to think make a good president doesn't mean he wouldn't be one. (And really, neither Ireland's nor America's track record of leaders speaks very well to our ideas of good leadership.) An ideas man can only be an ideas man until he's put in a position to execute them. And Nader's executed a lot of ideas over the years.
Actually Nader's ideas do fit the mold of what the public wants to see. Roland posted a great Chomsky piece that highlighted how our 2 party system's policies are always too far to the right of what the general public wishes to see happen in their country.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually Nader's ideas do fit the mold of what the public wants to see. Roland posted a great Chomsky piece that highlighted how our 2 party system's policies are always too far to the right of what the general public wishes to see happen in their country.
Yeah, I should have said he doesn't fit the past pattern of presidents. You know me: always with the sweeping statements.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Do you really think that a sizable 3rd party is going to consist purely of people with the same ideas as Nader? With the same refusal to compromise on the issues? It's improbable, if not impossible, and so, compromise would inevitably follow.
Just because Nader doesn't fit the mould of what most people seem to think make a good president doesn't mean he wouldn't be one. (And really, neither Ireland's nor America's track record of leaders speaks very well to our ideas of good leadership.) An ideas man can only be an ideas man until he's put in a position to execute them. And Nader's executed a lot of ideas over the years.
I'm not saying he hasn't executed ideas over the years, but running a country is a tad different to campaining against safety standards in cars.
And the people who choose to join his party need not be carbon copy clones of him, they just have to agree with him on the relevant issues. I mean, someone is going to have to succeed him eventually, wouldn't it make more sense to have a group that are capable of using his ideas, improving on them over time and when the time came, put them into action?
And I never said he didn't fit a mould for leadership. If anything, he does have leadership qualities. I said he shouldn't run a country. He lack the pragmatism to do that as evidenced by his kamikaze campaigns.
Yes, the man has good ideas. Yes, he's not acknowledged by the media or sometimes even by his opponents. BUT he has done sweet fuck all to improve his situation. So I deduce he either doesn't want the job, or he is incapable of getting himself elected. Because like everything in like, even when the odds are against you, you can still come out on top. He hasn't exhibited any quality that would show he is capable of evening the odds against him.
Don't limit yourself to bad choices. I know I'm not content with that.
People can and do work with Ralph Nader. he has founded more public interest non profits than anyone in this nation more than likely. So yes, I do believe Ralph Nader knows the value of teamwork and he has people working with him on a grassroots level already to accomplish his objectives.
Indeed, but he needs to make it bigger, make it official if you know what I mean. He has a lot of resources at his disposal that he's not making use of.
The Media are hardly calculating and scheming, they're easily played for ones own benefit. Sure if he doesn't want to do that cuz of his principles, that's fine, but there are other ways to get the publicity thats being denied to him.
I'm not saying he hasn't executed ideas over the years, but running a country is a tad different to campaining against safety standards in cars.
And the people who choose to join his party need not be carbon copy clones of him, they just have to agree with him on the relevant issues. I mean, someone is going to have to succeed him eventually, wouldn't it make more sense to have a group that are capable of using his ideas, improving on them over time and when the time came, put them into action?
And I never said he didn't fit a mould for leadership. If anything, he does have leadership qualities. I said he shouldn't run a country. He lack the pragmatism to do that as evidenced by his kamikaze campaigns.
Yes, the man has good ideas. Yes, he's not acknowledged by the media or sometimes even by his opponents. BUT he has done sweet fuck all to improve his situation. So I deduce he either doesn't want the job, or he is incapable of getting himself elected. Because like everything in like, even when the odds are against you, you can still come out on top. He hasn't exhibited any quality that would show he is capable of evening the odds against him.
Lack of pragmatism? What is pragmatism then to you?...to continue this perpetual cycle of ineffectual and corrupt government that does fuck all to advance our society and implement policies for the better good of it's people and simply not it's most wealthy and most greedy, destructive, polluting corporations? How is that pragmatism working out for us? Last I checked, not too well. Gee, I wonder why he wouldn't want to work with that and why he tries so hard to rail against it? Someone needs to and it's an overwhelming task...I'm glad a few people in this country can recognize it like Nader, Gonzalez, Gravel, Paul and my fav Kucinich. These people aren't worried about being practical, falling in line and playing the same corrupt game to gain power. They see things that are wrong in this country and against all odds they stand up against it. Kudos to them! Why be practical in a system that is designed to be anything but.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Lack of pragmatism? What is pragmatism then to you?...to continue this perpetual cycle of ineffectual and corrupt government that does fuck all to advance our society and implement policies for the better good of it's people and simply not it's most wealthy and most greedy, destructive, polluting corporations? How is that pragmatism working out for us? Last I checked, not too well. Gee, I wonder why he wouldn't want to work with that and why he tries so hard to rail against it? Someone needs to and it's an overwhelming task...I'm glad a few people in this country can recognize it like Nader, Gonzalez, Gravel, Paul and my fav Kucinich. These people aren't worried about being practical, falling in line and playing the same corrupt game to gain power. They see things that are wrong in this country and against all odds they stand up against it. Kudos to them! Why be practical in a system that is designed to be anything but.
*stands politely to the side, and lets the master take over*
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Indeed, but he needs to make it bigger, make it official if you know what I mean. He has a lot of resources at his disposal that he's not making use of.
The Media are hardly calculating and scheming, they're easily played for ones own benefit. Sure if he doesn't want to do that cuz of his principles, that's fine, but there are other ways to get the publicity thats being denied to him.
I will concede that he needs to use the internet more wisely. He age does show in this area but he mind and ideas are golden as always. He needs to definitely work on making more of a splash but right now it's taking up an obscene amount of time and resources just to run petition drives from state to state to simply gain ballot access. Yay democracy! In our state, we had to throw out a ton of signatures this last week for something as moronic as the the petitions were printed on the wrong size of paper!!! Can you believe that!?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Lack of pragmatism? What is pragmatism then to you?...to continue this perpetual cycle of ineffectual and corrupt government that does fuck all to advance our society and implement policies for the better good of it's people and simply not it's most wealthy and most greedy, destructive, polluting corporations? How is that pragmatism working out for us? Last I checked, not too well. Gee, I wonder why he wouldn't want to work with that and why he tries so hard to rail against it? Someone needs to and it's an overwhelming task...I'm glad a few people in this country can recognize it like Nader, Gonzalez, Gravel, Paul and my fav Kucinich. These people aren't worried about being practical, falling in line and playing the same corrupt game to gain power. They see things that are wrong in this country and against all odds they stand up against it. Kudos to them! Why be practical in a system that is designed to be anything but.
So the system has fallen apart. You have to play the game in order to change the rules. No one is going to just waltz in, get elected President, fix the system and waltz out. Life, politics, whatever - Nothing is that simple. All those people you mentioned, they all had and still have some great policies, I agree. But if playing the game gets a better outcome in the long run, isn't it better for everyone that way? Holding on to your ideals about how you should go about is kinda selfish if you know that its not going to get you into a position to make a difference. Admirable, yes. Honourable, certainly. But the world needs change, and the only way it can happen is from within its already corrupt system. If you can't recognise that, then you won't get far trying to change things. That's how Nader isn't pragmatic. He isn't doing what needs to be done to make a necessary change. Instead, he's out there on his own trying to be a hero, as it were. But that's not how it works. I wish it did myself, but it doesn't. That doesn't mean he or anyone else should resign to defeat, just go about it another way. Do you see what I mean?
I will concede that he needs to use the internet more wisely. He age does show in this area but he mind and ideas are golden as always. He needs to definitely work on making more of a splash but right now it's taking up an obscene amount of time and resources just to run petition drives from state to state to simply gain ballot access. Yay democracy! In our state, we had to throw out a ton of signatures this last week for something as moronic as the the petitions were printed on the wrong size of paper!!! Can you believe that!?
I honestly can't believe that... That's pretty fucked up right there. I will admit that his age is of little consequence though. He's up against the Maverick that is John McCain (he's a maverick apparently). Zimmerframes at the ready folks...
Holding on to your ideals about how you should go about is kinda selfish if you know that its not going to get you into a position to make a difference.
and that right there is why i think that is also the safe way to play it. while some may think they're so honorable, they're able to sit on the throne of self-righteousness, especially once the acknowledgment is made that they're not going to win. in the end they won't really have to be accountable in a way. they can say that they stayed 100% true to their beliefs and blogged and posted about it. and once that election happens, they're in the clear. they can continue hating on president obama.
more radical beliefs are absolutely needed in this society. but this isn't the way to accomplish these goals.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
But still, if you're in the position to build a good grass-roots foundation third party and you don't do it, well you're missing out on a big chance to win people over, get your point across. Someone who doesn't avail of such an opportunity isn't worth voting for as they lack (here's the key word) pragmatism. You can have all the great ideals and best intentions in the world, but if you lack the pragmatic ability to put them into place then you're worth sweet fuck all.
That aside, his policies are somewhat fine. And his git-ular nature aside, he'd make a fine presidenté. But he lacks that "can-do" attitude that others have. Even George W. had it. Albeit a bad kind of "can-do" spirit (I can blow up Iraqistan!)... But whatever. Doing nothing is much worse than doing something (ususally).
hmm. true Ralph is and has been in a position readily equipped to try and build a third political party i America, but... if you realize that the party-system is the basic corruption in the first place why would you want to waste time building anything in relation to that system?
i'm not saying this is Ralph Nader's secret alibi or anything, but building a new party and trying to win power within today's political environment is a bit unlikely. or maybe i'm just a pessimist..?
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
So the system has fallen apart. You have to play the game in order to change the rules. No one is going to just waltz in, get elected President, fix the system and waltz out. Life, politics, whatever - Nothing is that simple. All those people you mentioned, they all had and still have some great policies, I agree. But if playing the game gets a better outcome in the long run, isn't it better for everyone that way? Holding on to your ideals about how you should go about is kinda selfish if you know that its not going to get you into a position to make a difference. Admirable, yes. Honourable, certainly. But the world needs change, and the only way it can happen is from within its already corrupt system. If you can't recognise that, then you won't get far trying to change things. That's how Nader isn't pragmatic. He isn't doing what needs to be done to make a necessary change. Instead, he's out there on his own trying to be a hero, as it were. But that's not how it works. I wish it did myself, but it doesn't. That doesn't mean he or anyone else should resign to defeat, just go about it another way. Do you see what I mean?
I'm sorry, I just don't see becoming part of the problem as anyway to change the problem. All I see is what's being proposed by the 2 major parties as piling more of the same old problems on for us to have to deal with for even longer. If we are talking change then we need to actually start seeing how this change will come about. If not then it's nothing more than a word. All the policies proposed by the mainstream parties are all part of a corrupt system whose goal is maintain power and there is no change in that. We need to do away with the whole system of corruption to really start seeing change. As of now it's merely equates to tossing cheap, tiny pieces of candy out to the crowd from a grand float on a parade route. These pieces of cheap candy only work to appease the populace when actually we should be demanding more from our government and letting them know we are paying attention and this is not acceptable. The Democratic party is nothing more than an illusion of an opposition party so it doesn't become too blatantly obvious how we are really ruled by a dictatorship where all ideas outside their narrow scope are excluded constantly and immediately labeled 'unrealistic'. The only realistic ideas are the ones they approve for us. Playing this same corrupt game says yes, this is acceptable and this is the best we can do. People like Ralph Nader don't believe this is the best we can do for one second. So they go about trying to bring change in a different manner because it's more than apparent change isn't coming by the pragmatic approach you seem content with either. It just works to rationalize keeping a bad system in place indefinitely. Where does it end? When do we get something better? Nader uses his strong, articulate voice and years of experience and knowledge to try the best he can to influence the system and the candidates running. Does he believe he'll win come November? No, of course not. But it would be an incredible thing if he did? Sure, why not? I don't see how it could be much worse than one of the mainstream phonies winning. They'll win and do next to nothing to put this country in the direction it should be headed....so no change really. If Nader won, he'll meet tons of resistance from inside the government and all the special interests really running the show BUT he'll have the will of the people on his side who DO support his policies and know he stands for REAL change. It would expose those who rail against him for what they really are...bought and paid for politicians not public servants put in place to represent the people they supposedly serve. So Ralph really has nothing to lose and everything to gain by putting his voice out there and giving the people some real choice in this democracy we like to brag so much about. He's spreading awareness, showing people what it really takes to be an active citizen and he's allowing people who didn't have an option to express their voice and concerns before to actually have someone they can feel good about getting behind. This is how progress is made and apathy is replaced with hope...and it doesn't all ride on winning or losing...it rides on making waves that spread and catch on to people who didn't realize it before. Nader's not trying to be a hero....he already is a hero without running for president and subjecting himself to this constant stream of criticism and petty insults. It appears much more selfless to me because for him doing what he feels is right and standing up for his country in order to try to make it a better place all comes before his legacy and all the recognition/respect he has earned in the past. He subjects all that to being tarnished and downplayed in order to keep fighting the good fight. And I can't think of a much more admirable and selfless route for him to take.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
and that right there is why i think that is also the safe way to play it. while some may think they're so honorable, they're able to sit on the throne of self-righteousness, especially once the acknowledgment is made that they're not going to win. in the end they won't really have to be accountable in a way. they can say that they stayed 100% true to their beliefs and blogged and posted about it. and once that election happens, they're in the clear. they can continue hating on president obama.
more radical beliefs are absolutely needed in this society. but this isn't the way to accomplish these goals.
So what would be the point in supporting something I don't believe in just because that said person will probably win? I don't get that at all.
Yay, the person I voted for won but I don't like what they stand for in the least....let the progress rush in! What have I accomplished here exactly?
And what do you mean 'self righteous'? Standing behind my ideals? Most of the people I've admired throughout history have done exactly that.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
hmm. true Ralph is and has been in a position readily equipped to try and build a third political party i America, but... if you realize that the party-system is the basic corruption in the first place why would you want to waste time building anything in relation to that system?
i'm not saying this is Ralph Nader's secret alibi or anything, but building a new party and trying to win power within today's political environment is a bit unlikely. or maybe i'm just a pessimist..?
that's exactly why I registered as an independent. Parties always corrupt once they gain power and I view that as the problem not the answer to it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The only problem is, you have to vote for Nader to show that his policies carry weight. If too many vote for Nader, he might (hypothetically, anyway) win. Which is bad, because he's not a leader.
Ralph Nader has been a leader his entire career. He has earned the admiration of many who have worked under him (including several lawyers working pro bono) to help achieve his goals.
He has worked with teams to publish book after book on different health and safety hazards while pushing a myriad of legislative actions through the government.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
and that right there is why i think that is also the safe way to play it. while some may think they're so honorable, they're able to sit on the throne of self-righteousness, especially once the acknowledgment is made that they're not going to win. in the end they won't really have to be accountable in a way. they can say that they stayed 100% true to their beliefs and blogged and posted about it. and once that election happens, they're in the clear. they can continue hating on president obama.
more radical beliefs are absolutely needed in this society. but this isn't the way to accomplish these goals.
I disagree with your assessment of people who are not main stream voters.
Regardless of who ends up in office we still need to watch what they do and speak up when the elected do not do what we feel is right. Call it Obama hating, but I see as part of civic action. It doesn't end after the election.
How many people here have ever interviewed excellently and subsequently been hired for a job? How many of those who answered yes were allowed to do the job as they saw fit without answering to anyone, getting any performance reviews or being called out for any mistakes?
I see our elected officials as employees hired by the public. We need to keep tabs on them - let them now when they are performing well and let them have it when they completely fuck things up.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Holding on to your ideals about how you should go about is kinda selfish if you know that its not going to get you into a position to make a difference.
and that right there is why i think that is also the safe way to play it. while some may think they're so honorable, they're able to sit on the throne of self-righteousness, especially once the acknowledgment is made that they're not going to win. in the end they won't really have to be accountable in a way. they can say that they stayed 100% true to their beliefs and blogged and posted about it. and once that election happens, they're in the clear. they can continue hating on president obama.
more radical beliefs are absolutely needed in this society. but this isn't the way to accomplish these goals.
This, my friends, is the basis of human imbalance at this point in time.
You can't make a difference when you don't have true inner balance and integrity. You live by an ego-script that you are "making a difference" all the while creating a negative backlash you will learn by.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm sorry, I just don't see becoming part of the problem as anyway to change the problem. All I see is what's being proposed by the 2 major parties as piling more of the same old problems on for us to have to deal with for even longer. If we are talking change then we need to actually start seeing how this change will come about. If not then it's nothing more than a word. All the policies proposed by the mainstream parties are all part of a corrupt system whose goal is maintain power and there is no change in that. We need to do away with the whole system of corruption to really start seeing change. As of now it's merely equates to tossing cheap, tiny pieces of candy out to the crowd from a grand float on a parade route. These pieces of cheap candy only work to appease the populace when actually we should be demanding more from our government and letting them know we are paying attention and this is not acceptable. The Democratic party is nothing more than an illusion of an opposition party so it doesn't become too blatantly obvious how we are really ruled by a dictatorship where all ideas outside their narrow scope are excluded constantly and immediately labeled 'unrealistic'. The only realistic ideas are the ones they approve for us. Playing this same corrupt game says yes, this is acceptable and this is the best we can do. People like Ralph Nader don't believe this is the best we can do for one second. So they go about trying to bring change in a different manner because it's more than apparent change isn't coming by the pragmatic approach you seem content with either. It just works to rationalize keeping a bad system in place indefinitely. Where does it end? When do we get something better? Nader uses his strong, articulate voice and years of experience and knowledge to try the best he can to influence the system and the candidates running. Does he believe he'll win come November? No, of course not. But it would be an incredible thing if he did? Sure, why not? I don't see how it could be much worse than one of the mainstream phonies winning. They'll win and do next to nothing to put this country in the direction it should be headed....so no change really. If Nader won, he'll meet tons of resistance from inside the government and all the special interests really running the show BUT he'll have the will of the people on his side who DO support his policies and know he stands for REAL change. It would expose those who rail against him for what they really are...bought and paid for politicians not public servants put in place to represent the people they supposedly serve. So Ralph really has nothing to lose and everything to gain by putting his voice out there and giving the people some real choice in this democracy we like to brag so much about. He's spreading awareness, showing people what it really takes to be an active citizen and he's allowing people who didn't have an option to express their voice and concerns before to actually have someone they can feel good about getting behind. This is how progress is made and apathy is replaced with hope...and it doesn't all ride on winning or losing...it rides on making waves that spread and catch on to people who didn't realize it before. Nader's not trying to be a hero....he already is a hero without running for president and subjecting himself to this constant stream of criticism and petty insults. It appears much more selfless to me because for him doing what he feels is right and standing up for his country in order to try to make it a better place all comes before his legacy and all the recognition/respect he has earned in the past. He subjects all that to being tarnished and downplayed in order to keep fighting the good fight. And I can't think of a much more admirable and selfless route for him to take.
Abookamongstthemany 08!!!!!!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
As president I promise to next time break it down into paragraphs.
Ralph is encouraging people to be active citizens in this democracy and inspiring them to become lifetime activists for change. To me that's much more important and even vital to this country's progressive movement than spending time building political parties which by their very nature will fail.
This, my friends, is the basis of human imbalance at this point in time.
You can't make a difference when you don't have true inner balance and integrity. You live by an ego-script that you are "making a difference" all the while creating a negative backlash you will learn by.
and that's quite an assumption/opinion. nothing more, nothing less.
Ralph is encouraging people to be active citizens in this democracy and inspiring them to become lifetime activists for change. To me that's much more important and even vital to this country's progressive movement than spending time building political parties which by their very nature will fail.
i agree with most of this. i think nader has and does all these things. i do not agree with any ideas/concepts of building 'political parties' per se....but sure, i do think one does need a base of unity. i don't know what a better system would be than the party system, and also agree we need viable parties outside of the main two and am happy there ARE candidates outside of that, working for change. it IS needed. i just wish at times that many of these truly intelligent, progressive minds could somehow build a better/stronger platform, and it does seem having a viable political party might do just that. i certainly don't have any answers there. i just think there ARE many great minds out there, nader included, who i would love to see more involved, get to have an even bigger influence, etc.....and that doesn't necessarily have to occur only by running/becoming president. so while it may seem unnecssary/futile to build a new, viable and strong political party...it may just be what other candidates need. dunno......
Comments
He's not so much running to get his ideas on the table, more to get them acknowledged by the other parties.
If he gets enough votes, then it would appear that his policies carry a good bit of weight and so the winning candidate would have to look into maybe carrying some of them out (probably to a limited degree).
The only problem is, you have to vote for Nader to show that his policies carry weight. If too many vote for Nader, he might (hypothetically, anyway) win. Which is bad, because he's not a leader.
All this is easily remedied by setting up a proper third party with his ideals. Does that not make more sense than having one man, doomed to fail, try endlessly to get his ideas recognised in a larger political forum that frankly doesn't want to even hear his name let alone what he has to say?
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader
I'd say reading some of that might convince you that Nader has the potential to be a good leader - at least, better than any of the other options.
As for why he doesn't set up a third party with his ideals... that's impossible. Any political party, by default, will represent a broad range of ideals, for better or for worse. The Demmiecrats don't represent a single point of view, nor do the Republicans. If Nader doesn't want to compromise his personal beliefs to establish a "viable" 3rd party, I don't see it as a flaw. Maybe we differ there - especially since you seem to be okay with the establishment simply wanting to stop acknowledging Nader's existence.
How do I seem ok with them wanting to voice himself? I was just pointing it out because that's what they are doing. And he doesn't have to compromise his ideals to form a political party. Why do you think his ideals are too narrow for that?
I've already read his wiki page alright, he's done a lot of things, good for him. But he doesn't have what it takes to run a country, as evidenced by the fact he refuses to set up a third party which would bolster his campaign maybe even to the point of victory. He's had 40 goddam years, and he still hasn't done anything remotely like it. So why wouldn't a man such as Nader not set up a party with his ideals? My guess is because he wouldn't know what to do with it. Why? Because he's not that kind of leader. He's an ideas man, but not all idealists are leaders. He wouldn't be able to keep the non-relevant points of view that occur in a political party in check.
Just because a man has good ideas, doesn't mean that he's capable of executing them.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
And how are these political parties you seem so fond of executing any of their ideas? They are the most ineffectual groups in this country. And as far as good ideas go...they are all but bankrupt. So excuse some if they might want to try another route.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5501698&postcount=20
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So one man alone is better than a group of people with that, together, are better off as an individual?
I see your point, political parties are ineffectual, don't get me wrong, but they are a means to an end. The only means to the only end, unfortunately.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
Do you really think that a sizable 3rd party is going to consist purely of people with the same ideas as Nader? With the same refusal to compromise on the issues? It's improbable, if not impossible, and so, compromise would inevitably follow.
Just because Nader doesn't fit the mould of what most people seem to think make a good president doesn't mean he wouldn't be one. (And really, neither Ireland's nor America's track record of leaders speaks very well to our ideas of good leadership.) An ideas man can only be an ideas man until he's put in a position to execute them. And Nader's executed a lot of ideas over the years.
Don't limit yourself to bad choices. I know I'm not content with that.
People can and do work with Ralph Nader. he has founded more public interest non profits than anyone in this nation more than likely. So yes, I do believe Ralph Nader knows the value of teamwork and he has people working with him on a grassroots level already to accomplish his objectives.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually Nader's ideas do fit the mold of what the public wants to see. Roland posted a great Chomsky piece that highlighted how our 2 party system's policies are always too far to the right of what the general public wishes to see happen in their country.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yeah, I should have said he doesn't fit the past pattern of presidents. You know me: always with the sweeping statements.
I'm not saying he hasn't executed ideas over the years, but running a country is a tad different to campaining against safety standards in cars.
And the people who choose to join his party need not be carbon copy clones of him, they just have to agree with him on the relevant issues. I mean, someone is going to have to succeed him eventually, wouldn't it make more sense to have a group that are capable of using his ideas, improving on them over time and when the time came, put them into action?
And I never said he didn't fit a mould for leadership. If anything, he does have leadership qualities. I said he shouldn't run a country. He lack the pragmatism to do that as evidenced by his kamikaze campaigns.
Yes, the man has good ideas. Yes, he's not acknowledged by the media or sometimes even by his opponents. BUT he has done sweet fuck all to improve his situation. So I deduce he either doesn't want the job, or he is incapable of getting himself elected. Because like everything in like, even when the odds are against you, you can still come out on top. He hasn't exhibited any quality that would show he is capable of evening the odds against him.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
Indeed, but he needs to make it bigger, make it official if you know what I mean. He has a lot of resources at his disposal that he's not making use of.
The Media are hardly calculating and scheming, they're easily played for ones own benefit. Sure if he doesn't want to do that cuz of his principles, that's fine, but there are other ways to get the publicity thats being denied to him.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
Lack of pragmatism? What is pragmatism then to you?...to continue this perpetual cycle of ineffectual and corrupt government that does fuck all to advance our society and implement policies for the better good of it's people and simply not it's most wealthy and most greedy, destructive, polluting corporations? How is that pragmatism working out for us? Last I checked, not too well. Gee, I wonder why he wouldn't want to work with that and why he tries so hard to rail against it? Someone needs to and it's an overwhelming task...I'm glad a few people in this country can recognize it like Nader, Gonzalez, Gravel, Paul and my fav Kucinich. These people aren't worried about being practical, falling in line and playing the same corrupt game to gain power. They see things that are wrong in this country and against all odds they stand up against it. Kudos to them! Why be practical in a system that is designed to be anything but.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
*stands politely to the side, and lets the master take over*
I will concede that he needs to use the internet more wisely. He age does show in this area but he mind and ideas are golden as always. He needs to definitely work on making more of a splash but right now it's taking up an obscene amount of time and resources just to run petition drives from state to state to simply gain ballot access. Yay democracy! In our state, we had to throw out a ton of signatures this last week for something as moronic as the the petitions were printed on the wrong size of paper!!! Can you believe that!?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So the system has fallen apart. You have to play the game in order to change the rules. No one is going to just waltz in, get elected President, fix the system and waltz out. Life, politics, whatever - Nothing is that simple. All those people you mentioned, they all had and still have some great policies, I agree. But if playing the game gets a better outcome in the long run, isn't it better for everyone that way? Holding on to your ideals about how you should go about is kinda selfish if you know that its not going to get you into a position to make a difference. Admirable, yes. Honourable, certainly. But the world needs change, and the only way it can happen is from within its already corrupt system. If you can't recognise that, then you won't get far trying to change things. That's how Nader isn't pragmatic. He isn't doing what needs to be done to make a necessary change. Instead, he's out there on his own trying to be a hero, as it were. But that's not how it works. I wish it did myself, but it doesn't. That doesn't mean he or anyone else should resign to defeat, just go about it another way. Do you see what I mean?
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
Written anything else today? Or posted any? Hmmmm?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Written lots, posted nothing of interest.
I honestly can't believe that... That's pretty fucked up right there. I will admit that his age is of little consequence though. He's up against the Maverick that is John McCain (he's a maverick apparently). Zimmerframes at the ready folks...
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
and that right there is why i think that is also the safe way to play it. while some may think they're so honorable, they're able to sit on the throne of self-righteousness, especially once the acknowledgment is made that they're not going to win. in the end they won't really have to be accountable in a way. they can say that they stayed 100% true to their beliefs and blogged and posted about it. and once that election happens, they're in the clear. they can continue hating on president obama.
more radical beliefs are absolutely needed in this society. but this isn't the way to accomplish these goals.
cross the river to the eastside
hmm. true Ralph is and has been in a position readily equipped to try and build a third political party i America, but... if you realize that the party-system is the basic corruption in the first place why would you want to waste time building anything in relation to that system?
i'm not saying this is Ralph Nader's secret alibi or anything, but building a new party and trying to win power within today's political environment is a bit unlikely. or maybe i'm just a pessimist..?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I'm sorry, I just don't see becoming part of the problem as anyway to change the problem. All I see is what's being proposed by the 2 major parties as piling more of the same old problems on for us to have to deal with for even longer. If we are talking change then we need to actually start seeing how this change will come about. If not then it's nothing more than a word. All the policies proposed by the mainstream parties are all part of a corrupt system whose goal is maintain power and there is no change in that. We need to do away with the whole system of corruption to really start seeing change. As of now it's merely equates to tossing cheap, tiny pieces of candy out to the crowd from a grand float on a parade route. These pieces of cheap candy only work to appease the populace when actually we should be demanding more from our government and letting them know we are paying attention and this is not acceptable. The Democratic party is nothing more than an illusion of an opposition party so it doesn't become too blatantly obvious how we are really ruled by a dictatorship where all ideas outside their narrow scope are excluded constantly and immediately labeled 'unrealistic'. The only realistic ideas are the ones they approve for us. Playing this same corrupt game says yes, this is acceptable and this is the best we can do. People like Ralph Nader don't believe this is the best we can do for one second. So they go about trying to bring change in a different manner because it's more than apparent change isn't coming by the pragmatic approach you seem content with either. It just works to rationalize keeping a bad system in place indefinitely. Where does it end? When do we get something better? Nader uses his strong, articulate voice and years of experience and knowledge to try the best he can to influence the system and the candidates running. Does he believe he'll win come November? No, of course not. But it would be an incredible thing if he did? Sure, why not? I don't see how it could be much worse than one of the mainstream phonies winning. They'll win and do next to nothing to put this country in the direction it should be headed....so no change really. If Nader won, he'll meet tons of resistance from inside the government and all the special interests really running the show BUT he'll have the will of the people on his side who DO support his policies and know he stands for REAL change. It would expose those who rail against him for what they really are...bought and paid for politicians not public servants put in place to represent the people they supposedly serve. So Ralph really has nothing to lose and everything to gain by putting his voice out there and giving the people some real choice in this democracy we like to brag so much about. He's spreading awareness, showing people what it really takes to be an active citizen and he's allowing people who didn't have an option to express their voice and concerns before to actually have someone they can feel good about getting behind. This is how progress is made and apathy is replaced with hope...and it doesn't all ride on winning or losing...it rides on making waves that spread and catch on to people who didn't realize it before. Nader's not trying to be a hero....he already is a hero without running for president and subjecting himself to this constant stream of criticism and petty insults. It appears much more selfless to me because for him doing what he feels is right and standing up for his country in order to try to make it a better place all comes before his legacy and all the recognition/respect he has earned in the past. He subjects all that to being tarnished and downplayed in order to keep fighting the good fight. And I can't think of a much more admirable and selfless route for him to take.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So what would be the point in supporting something I don't believe in just because that said person will probably win? I don't get that at all.
Yay, the person I voted for won but I don't like what they stand for in the least....let the progress rush in! What have I accomplished here exactly?
And what do you mean 'self righteous'? Standing behind my ideals? Most of the people I've admired throughout history have done exactly that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
that's exactly why I registered as an independent. Parties always corrupt once they gain power and I view that as the problem not the answer to it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ralph Nader has been a leader his entire career. He has earned the admiration of many who have worked under him (including several lawyers working pro bono) to help achieve his goals.
He has worked with teams to publish book after book on different health and safety hazards while pushing a myriad of legislative actions through the government.
He is a leader, just look behind him---> http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/photocredit/achievers/nad0-001
And please, watch An Unreasonable Man.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
I disagree with your assessment of people who are not main stream voters.
Regardless of who ends up in office we still need to watch what they do and speak up when the elected do not do what we feel is right. Call it Obama hating, but I see as part of civic action. It doesn't end after the election.
How many people here have ever interviewed excellently and subsequently been hired for a job? How many of those who answered yes were allowed to do the job as they saw fit without answering to anyone, getting any performance reviews or being called out for any mistakes?
I see our elected officials as employees hired by the public. We need to keep tabs on them - let them now when they are performing well and let them have it when they completely fuck things up.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
This, my friends, is the basis of human imbalance at this point in time.
You can't make a difference when you don't have true inner balance and integrity. You live by an ego-script that you are "making a difference" all the while creating a negative backlash you will learn by.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Abookamongstthemany 08!!!!!!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
As president I promise to next time break it down into paragraphs.
Ralph is encouraging people to be active citizens in this democracy and inspiring them to become lifetime activists for change. To me that's much more important and even vital to this country's progressive movement than spending time building political parties which by their very nature will fail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjevEGOglV0
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
and that's quite an assumption/opinion. nothing more, nothing less.
i agree with most of this. i think nader has and does all these things. i do not agree with any ideas/concepts of building 'political parties' per se....but sure, i do think one does need a base of unity. i don't know what a better system would be than the party system, and also agree we need viable parties outside of the main two and am happy there ARE candidates outside of that, working for change. it IS needed. i just wish at times that many of these truly intelligent, progressive minds could somehow build a better/stronger platform, and it does seem having a viable political party might do just that. i certainly don't have any answers there. i just think there ARE many great minds out there, nader included, who i would love to see more involved, get to have an even bigger influence, etc.....and that doesn't necessarily have to occur only by running/becoming president. so while it may seem unnecssary/futile to build a new, viable and strong political party...it may just be what other candidates need. dunno......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
gee, maybe that should be his campaign slogan.
it's exactly what we want in a president. :rolleyes:
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7